I seriously doubt that the PAF is going to replace all its F-7s and Mirage 3’s asap, the JF-17 production is unlikely to rise beyond a sq a year – the PGs shall also remain for quite some time. And frankly, the PAF would have neutralised a very important IAF advantage via equipping select squadrons w/BVR, especially active BVR. Only issue is that the nosecone of the F-7 is simply too compact for the practical application of the same.

Of course PGs will remain in service for quite a while. Initially they were expected to remain in service till 2015, but Im sure they will stay beyond then. But once again, PAF that concience choice.

This is for the Bison. With RAM, with more expensive and comprehensive avionics than the F-7. So the above would apply to the F-7 as well @ the very least. If I were in PAF acquisitions – I’d rather upgrade the GrifoM3 equipped ROSE 1 Mirages with a third party A2A BVR weapon. They would be a much more flexible BVR A2A asset.

Once BVRAAM equipped F-16s and JF-17 are in service, we will know what sort of experience PAF have had with BVRAAM on its mirages.:-)

AFM had a brief writeup on the PAFs newer F7s with the Grifos where it was revealed that they had some significant shortcomings vs newer gen systems, namely only short range combat modes & scan angle limitations. Not on account of the radar itself, but because the volume in the nose of the newer F-7s was quite limited.

When was that? I remember reading a detailed article on F-7PG by Alan Warnes, though (if i remember correctly) it didn’t mention the sort of things you are talking of.

That apart, there is also Occams razor to consider. Pak has never shied away from upgrades using cheaper (than western) Chinese gear even if it is only 60-80% as effective. The value still works out. In this case, we havent seen a single F-7 Chinese or Pakistani, with a BVR missile. Not a single operational fighter in either AF has SD-10s or PL-10s or PL-12’s. To me, it just reiterates the fact that the basic F-7 is volume limited & cant carry a radar with the kind of performance that would enable even basic BVR engagement.

Otherwise, Pak would have gone ahead and definitely upgraded a substantial chunk of its F-7 fleet w/BVR weaponry & it would have boosted their combat potential by a huge factor.

Both PAF and PLAAF did consider putting BVRAAM on their latest J/F-7s but decided against it. Both have other options (albeit somewhat limited for PAF), and I dont think either will be operating the type beyond 2020. As for SD-10/PL-12, well what can i say:) PL-12 has been integrated with J-8/J-11/J-10. Even PAF at present is in negotiations with chinese for 300 SD-10, the primary reason why they decided to go with a chinese avionics package for first bacth of JF-17 back in 2003/04.

Entire issue is the cost involved (in even putting in a basic Russian origin system for Kopyo compatibility) vs the time left in service. I wouldnt be sure that the IAF wont upgrade the Bisons – if it proves practical to give them an airframe/life extension (Consider the work at NAL for instance), they might get it. A datalink would make a huge difference to the Bisons combat effectiveness.

I have never really imagined PAK-FA serving IAF alongside Mig-21. But you never know.:)

You are confused about BVR here. To gain respectable benefit from a speed boost for your BVR armament, you need to be at a substantial speed to begin with, not to mention height & your radar & WCS should be optimized for that role. Just going supersonic and being at a few ten thousand feet is by itself no panacea.

Did i say something different when i was talking of speed and height?

In fact, at subsonic speeds of the launch aircraft, the RVV-AE can easily achieve 20-30 mile distances and the missile will be supported by the Kopyo. The Bison itself has proved hard for F16s, F-15s AND E-3’s to track in two exercises with the USAF, which goes to show that assumptions about it being detected first & attacked wont work either. In IAF exercises, the Bison was outgunning the earlier RDM + Super530D equipped Mirages as well. Goes to show, the newer avionics definitely compensated for airframe performance to a degree. And 20-30 mile distances are quite sufficient vs aircraft w/no BVR to begin with.

Which version of present R-77 on Bison achieves 30 miles at subsonic speeds? And what sort of altitudes are you talking about?

PS. All i can say is if Bison has all this, then GoI must be full of idiots to be thinking of spending billions of dollars on MMRCA, while LCA and PAK-FA are only round the corner with all sort of other fighter upgrades comng along.

Why not?? Since IAF is not cash strapped like PAF, it seems to make a very good case for standardizing on the data link. Especially on fighters that will serve till 2015-18 ( Almost a decade) and yes all future aircrafts will have it too.

Its not what our egos want, but practicalities and limitations. I was under the impression that IAF will retire Bisons by 2015 or slightly afterwards. Bison programme started back in 90s, and if they don’t have data links in 2008, I dont think there is much point to put one in now, especially when they only have a few years of service left and IAF will have all other major fighters equipped with data links.

Vikas, here is the article, and from the horses mouth itself..by the way, those were’nt even MKIs..those were the vanilla Su-30Ks.

“The outcome of the exercise boils down to [the fact that] they ran tactics that were more advanced than we expected,” Snowden says. “India had developed its own air tactics somewhat in a vacuum. They had done some training with the French that we knew about, but we did not expect them to be a very well-trained air force. That was silly.

“They could come up with a game plan, but if it wasn’t working they would call an audible and change [tactics in flight],” he says. “They made good decisions about when to bring their strikers in. The MiG-21s would be embedded with a Flogger for integral protection. There was a data link between the Flankers that was used to pass information. [Using all their assets,] they built a very good [radar] picture of what we were doing and were able to make good decisions about when to roll [their aircraft] in and out.”

Aerospace industry officials say there’s some indication that the MiG-21s also may have been getting a data feed from other airborne radars that gave them improved situational awareness of the airborne picture.

21Ankush, the above doesn’t say anything, but There was a data link between the Flankers that was used to pass information and that there’s some indication that the MiG-21s also may have been getting a data feed from other airborne radars. I said that I find the presence of datalink on Bison difficult to digest which is not the same as denial, and the above also speculates (no facts).

PS. A PAF F-7P on a scheduled Functional Control Flight Mission (earlier today) crossed the sound barrier while it was coming down from 40,000 feet altitude to 15,000 feet. I just thought of sharing this with you as people have talked about about the fuel consumption when Bison would need to gain altitude in order to fire BVRAAM.

And this justifies the expansive radar upgrade? Just so that the Bisons can go into war nose cold and rely on other fighters and AWACS for missile guidence?

Bison carrying BVR is not a bad idea considering the fact that most BVR fights are meant to take place just beyond WVR arena. IFF is still probably the biggest headache in BVR engagement, and I personally find it a little difficult to digest that Bisons were receiving all their info through some sort of secure data linking from MKI, and using that to engage red forces. Having said this, considering Ind/Pak/China geography most BVR engagements are likely to take place within 15 to 30 Km zone, and lthough a bigger fighter with a better range, acceleration, climb rate etc will have a bigger impact in BVRAAM battles, Bison upgrade was not a bad idea at all back in 1990s. Missile is ingreasingly becoming more important than the carrier platform with recent advances in technology where an AWACS will be able to guide the missile after launch…making it truly fire and forget. If so, in future we can hope to further advances in missile ranges, NEZ, carrier’s ability to supercruise at increasing speed and so on.

The comment of the thread so far…definitely made my day.

If you are facing J-7 why would you need Supersonic speed and high altitude for BVR shot? J-7 is not MIG-31 that travels at 70,000 feet.

can you give any figure for J-7 altitude and its staying power in minutes above Mach 1 with external load out.
Morevoer what is FOV of its radar so it can search targets by itself. u cannot just deduce from Radar posters and claim that gimbal antenna works inside J-7 nose the same way like proper nose cone.

Pardon? What does J-7 altitude/staying power has anything to do with your earlier comment, i.e. If you are facing J-7 why would you need Supersonic speed and high altitude for BVR shot? J-7 is not MIG-31 that travels at 70,000 feet.🙂

Do you know the drastic effect the lower speed and altitude will have on BVRAAM range/NEZ of that R-77? While R-77’s might have a range of 80 km at 15,000 feet when fired form a platform travelling at Mach 1.5 (with increasing reduction in its ability to manuever as the missile travels farther from the platform), i wouldn’t be surprised if it goes down to something like 20 Km if its fired from 5000 feet and Mack 0.7.:) And there you go…almost entering WVR.:) What Crobato meant was that to get the most out of your BVRAAM, you would have to go high up (where air is thinner which will increase your missile’s range) and be fast (kinetic energy increases with increasing speed which will also increase your missile’s range)…and the overall range of your BVRAAM will therefore be much greater than if you fire it from a lower altitude/speed.:)

Similarly, you seem to be saying all that is needed are 4G fighters who will launch BVR weapons and run away without ever getting into WVR. That is a way too simplistic scenario. In the real world, both BVR and WVR will happen.

Precisely.
By this logic, latest models of J-8 with bigger radar, better acceleration and climb rate would toast a J-7 everytime. But I dont think that would be the case. The fact that Bison performed well against F-15s in those exercises with the latter fighter being better in almost every aspect is the clearest of all indications that BVR is not all that simple.

When it comes to WVR, my personal opinion is that the fighter with better missile/HMS is more likely to win and manueverability/agility is spite of its importance comes second. While a F-22 will win BVR against similarly equipped Mig-21 on more than most occasions, in WVR it could go either way.